There will always be good cops and bad cops as long as human nature takes a part in law enforcement. Obviously we trust the good ones and not the bad. I think therefore that certain precautions are necessary to prevent the bad ones from exploiting their power. There have been significant advances in technology that have helped us, such as video cameras and smartphones but there is one factor that I feel is even more important. That is the right to own guns.

The second amendment was intended to protect us from an abusive government and I think that the interactions between citizens and police are the frontlines of this whole concept. Cops are less likely to harass any random stranger if there is a chance that they are carrying a gun. The mere fact that guns are fairly prevalent in society keeps cops on their toes when it comes to enforcing the law, and thus helps to hinder abuse.

The police have a difficult job of being REQUIRED to enforce the law, even when they themselves don't want to. This can put some unwanted negativity in their direction which generates some fear of the 'long arm of the law'. We need a country where the police are not afraid to enforce the law but should be afraid of stepping outside of its bounds. Increased monitoring of the police with modern technology can help us in many areas of the country but the strongest universal response is the right to bear arms.

> The police have a difficult job of being REQUIRED to enforce the law, even when they themselves don't want to.

It is a common misconception that the police have a legal duty to enforce the law. Their only obligations are to their superiors. Obviously, not enforcing any laws is a quick way to get fired. But there is no more legal repercussion for an officer to not come to a persons aid than there is a private person.

Now, to answer your question. I once worked in a prosecutor's office, and dealt with police daily. I also have family members who are officers. I believe that people overestimate the extent to which the police are corrupt- but there is undeniably corruption. I ran into some bad apples, so I know they are there, in a great minority.

However, I don't trust the police. The reason? Well, I don't generally break laws. Therefore, good cops leave me alone; or, if a good cop doesn't, I know I goofed. Therefore, when I see a cop that I think is going to engage me (on the road, on the street, whatever,) I immediately suspect they are on a fishing expedition.

Did you ever wonder why you never hear about good, law-abiding people being pulled over by nice, professional cops, everybody realizing it was a big misunderstanding, and going about their day? Apart from the fact that it wouldn't spread like bad news does, it simply doesn't happen. Good cops leave good people alone. When good people have encounters with the police, the police are up to something. Padding numbers, gunning for a promotion, trying to get some time and a half in court, whatever. I don't care why. It sucks.

So here I am with the messed up belief that 95% of cops are the good guys, and we owe them a debt of gratitude, and I want absolutely nothing to do with them.

Yes, cops can't be sued if they don't do their job because they had no duty to protect an individual person. But police departments get sued all the time.

reply

subscribe

share/challenge

flag

Load more (1)in reply toAveSharia's post (A minor correction before I comment: > The police have a difficult job of being REQUIRED to enforce the law, even when they themselves don't want to. It is a common misconception that the police have...)

It "makes sense" but there is no evidence for it. It could be just as likely that more arms make officers more likely to want to monitor people with guns and want to be better armed, as has very consistently happened, which leads to an arms race that the average person will not win. In fact, one could argue that the militarization of cops is a result of our gun culture! The fact that we have some of the most militarized police in the industrialized world and the most guns is a VERY strong indication of that.

Or perhaps the existence of armed citizens will tend to lead cops to either not want to go deal with a problem because the situation might escalate worse, so that they tend to not patrol certain highly armed areas, or may de-emphasize protecting areas that have high guns because they can take care of themselves. Which would, of course, lead to privatization of security and the class inequalities that result, which is one of the biggest problem with private gun ownership.

Gun rights advocates need to stop pretending these issues are a priori. They are not. They are empirical.

That's an interesting way of putting it, but don't you also think that the lack of regulation could be the cause of some accidental shootings? Many cops/court workers I have known are paranoid people-- always eating with their backs to walls and watching their backs since they often make enemies.Granted, these people they are worried about are usually not allowed to buy guns legally, but there are many ways around it and so many unregistered firearms that the laws preventing them from owning a gun are practically useless. Knowing that Eric the Drugdealer, or Lucky the Tweaker is most likely packing heat is going to make me a little more reactive than if its very unlikely. I think stricter gun regulation on registered felons and a "war on illegal guns" would be the best in this scenario since it would reduce violent crime, which would probably reduce how worried cops are every time they step outside.

Besides, there's one of you and 20 more of them on standby. They have vests, high-caliber handguns, SMGs, tear gas, marksmen, better training than the average person, teamwork, etc. In a one-on-one quick-draw situation, an officer's gun will probably be out before yours is since their hand is probably on their gun if you're acting sketchy. Even if you DO outdraw them, you're going to jail, prison, or an early grave.

I believe the average, sane human being should have the right to carry a firearm to protect themselves if they deem it necessary, but lets not delude ourselves-- firearms are really only good at protecting us from other citizens. The whole "protecting ourselves from our government" clause was kind of thrown out the window with the advent of tanks and the .50 cal machine gun. Now all we have is Mutually Assured Destruction. If we're going down, they're going with us. It somewhat keeps things in check, but precariously. If the 2nd amendment wasn't there, who knows what would happen, but we have our guesses. (Nazi Germany, for instance.)

We need to find a way to get firearms away from those who should not have access to them.

Hate to break this too you, but the police are NOT required to enforce the law. In fact the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) has ruled that the police are not required to enforce the law nor are they required to answered your call for help. The police can sit back and watch a person being raped, murdered, robbed, even if said person is screaming for the police.

You can go to youtube and see it for yourself, you can watch CNN, FOX, NBC etc and see that, during the LA riots the police drove by people who were clearly breaking the law. The police can and have sat back and watch crimes being committed, and in some cases even encourage said crime, with hope (if they are honest) of catching bigger fish, letting a drug dealer continue to deal even after they have evidence to arrest the person with the hope of finding users and other dealers. Or selling drugs themselves in hopes of catching users.

At one time I used to trust the police but no longer, I have told my son that if he's ever arrested the only two things he is to say is "I want a lawyer, and I'm invoking my right to remain silent." The second part is because the SCOTUS has ruled that in order remain silent, you must tell them you are going to remain silent.

I have an issue with the question. As others have mentioned, police are people and with them comes all the faults in each of us. A better question might be, 'Do police act honorably?' We have every right to expect our cops to author accurate reports and testify about what they saw, heard and did.

I have never seen a cop decide to arrest a random person for no reason and clean it up later with lies. Where cops get in trouble is arresting someone who did do something illegal and either stretching the truth or making up lies to make it stick.

For one, I am white. It is a rational expectation for me to hold that the police can be trusted... for me. One of the most crucial problems with any dialog in this country is that people assume that, because they see the police as a positive force, other people must similarly do so. Different experiences produce different outcomes.

However, I still do firmly believe that most police are decent people. I have heard police say that 10% of cops are heroic servants of the community, 10% are scum, and 80% go either way depending on who they're with. The point is to try to increase the size and influence of the first group, reduce the size and influence of the second group, and immunize the third group from the second. That requires substantial changing in policing tactics, socialization of police on the job, organizational culture, training, better diversity work, promoting more female officers, etc., but it can be done.

For the most part I do trust the police. Figuring that only a few of the hundreds of thousands of police make the headlines, and knowing that most police are aware of their mission to protect and serve, I would trust the majority of them to do what is right and what their job calls for.

There is a trend of militarizing the police force and apparently their mission, however, that if it continues, may cause me to reconsider my position on how much good versus bad they accomplish.